Bernece Berkman and the Monograph: a Feminist Perspective
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DePaul University Via Sapientiae College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences Theses and Dissertations College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences 6-2011 Bernece Berkman and the monograph: A feminist perspective Audrey E. Carie DePaul University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/etd Recommended Citation Carie, Audrey E., "Bernece Berkman and the monograph: A feminist perspective" (2011). College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences Theses and Dissertations. 80. https://via.library.depaul.edu/etd/80 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BERNECE BERKMAN AND THE MONOGRAPH: A FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE A THESIS PRESENTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS JUNE, 2011 BY AUDREY CARIE WOMEN’S AND GENDER STUDIES PROGRAM COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES DEPAUL UNIVERSITY CHICAGO, ILLINOIS CONTENTS ABSTRACT. iii Section 1. INTRODUCTION 2. INTERWOVEN IDENTITIES: ART, POLITICS, AND RELIGION IN CHICAGO, 1920-1945 . .14 3. GENDERED IDENTITY IN POST WORLD WAR II ARTWORK . 23 4. BERKMAN’S ARTISTIC RELATIONS TO DOMESTICITY . 29 5. GRAPHIC ARTS IN THE 1960s . .37 6. CONCLUSION . 47 WORKS CITED . .52 ii! ABSTRACT Bernece Berkman is one of many renowned women artists who has not been historically acclaimed. As women artists have been rediscovered, issues have arisen as to how they should be written about in relation to art history, because the language and canon of art history has revolved around and privileged those of dominant ideology. Writing about women artists using the current conventions of art history is using the same standards that initially marginalized women artists and artists who are not white, middle-upper class, heterosexual, Christian males. Therefore, it is necessary to consider a new language and system of evaluating art in a less exclusive way than the traditional standards. This, in turn, challenges and redefines society’s current ideals of artistic success. In relation to her exclusion from the literature, I argue that the canon of art history perpetuates the dominant ideology at the expense of those with less power, access and agency. Art history has been dominated by monographs, which have historically glorified white male artists while marginalizing those outside the hegemonic ideals. And yet, a monograph can also clearly contextualize an artist’s social location, regardless of their historiographic success. A feminist monograph locates women’s identities and experiences within the social context that they lived and worked. By highlighting these experiences, it demonstrates the ways in which women have worked in opposition to patriarchal oppression, while identifying the various oppressions specific to each woman as an individual. A feminist monograph is appropriate for Berkman, because it allows for a historically contextualized analysis including the specific social, political, and gendered power relations that existed during her lifetime and that contributed to her erasure. Specifically, Berkman’s erasure from art history is examined within iii! her social locations, as a woman, activist, artist, wife, and Jew within a broader context of the pre and post-World War II art world in Chicago and New York. This critical feminist analysis of Berkman’s artwork, as well as her intersecting social locations, recovers her biographical experiences while analyzing the very form of the monograph that also privileges individual biography at the expense of the social whole and totality of subject positions. iv! SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION In 1990, a woman rented an art studio in New York City. The landlord told her she could have the first two months rent free if she cleaned up the mess left by the prior occupant. It took the woman nearly the full two months to organize the three-foot pile of paintings, prints, zinc plates, exhibition pamphlets, supplies, personal documents, and other various materials. During this time, the woman realized she was sorting through something other than a heap of rejected items. She was among the artwork and life story of a prominent female artist, Bernece Berkman. In an attempt to preserve and acknowledge the life and work of Berkman, the woman contacted the Library of Congress where the majority of Berkman’s files and artworks now currently reside.1 Berkman is one of many renowned women artists who has not been historically acclaimed. As women artists have been rediscovered, issues have arisen as to how they should be written about in relation to art history, because the language and canon of art history has revolved around and privileged those of dominant ideology. Writing about women artists using the current conventions of art history is using the same standards that initially marginalized women artists and artists who are not white, middle-upper class, heterosexual, Christian males. Therefore, it is necessary to consider a new language and system of evaluating art in a less !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "!Barbara Spector submitted the story of how she came across Bernece Berkman-Hunter’s materials in a letter to the Library of Congress in reference to the Library preserving Berkman’s items. Spector noted that Berkman had died in poverty and without a will one year prior to Spector’s occupancy. Berkman had lived illegally in the cold-water building until her death in 1988. Spector created an inventory list and all was submitted but Berkman’s paintings, of which the Library did not have space to store. ! 1! ! ! ! ! exclusive way than the traditional standards. This, in turn, challenges and redefines society’s current ideals of artistic success. Considering my desire to recover a particular artist, Bernece Berkman, while critiquing the very conventions of rediscovery, I investigated the complexities and issues of writing monographs about women artists. A monograph is a concentrated study of an object or person, and art historical monographs have long been a standard mode in the field.2 In making decisions for how I should approach Berkman’s representation through a monograph, I looked to Kristin Frederickson and Sarah Webb’s analysis and compilation of feminist monographs on women artists, Singular Women.3 Frederickson detailed in the introduction to the anthology how monographs have historically discriminated against women artists while glorifying white, male artists, elucidating male artistic talent or “genius” as biologically inherent. Given this, some feminist scholars suggested abandoning the use of monographs, but even still, others have proposed that monographs have the potential to disrupt the perpetuation of male hegemony in art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was inspired to write a monograph about Berkman in this way by Frederickson’s question, “Is there a way to reinvent the monograph and the one-person exhibition and disengage [women artists] from their masculinist predecessors, or is a desire to do so simply the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! W!-.+!/012'3!#&4*%1%*,!\R73%=!#$%27G!!B%64'0?'01!64%!]70712)$4!)8!)!M%.'0'86,^!'0! !"#$%&'()*+,-#3))*("2"#$)28-)5(2"12,!%38>!H2'86%0!M2%3%2'&?870!)03!#)2)4!N>!O%;;!!EF78! -01%*%8,!R-G!!Q0':%28'6+!7(!R)*'(720')!C2%88,!ASSLK,!AS">!